Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 7/2017

01-07-2017 | Breast

Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density

Authors: Stefanie Weigel, W. Heindel, J. Heidrich, H.-W. Hense, O. Heidinger

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To analyse the impact of breast density on the sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) as key evaluation parameter.

Methods

25,576 examinations were prospectively stratified from ACR category 1 to 4 for increments of 25 % density during independent double reading. SP was calculated as number of screen-detected cancers divided by the sum of screen-detected plus interval cancers (24-months period) per ACR category, related to the first reading (a), second reading (b) and highest stratification if discrepant (c). Chi-square tests were used for comparison.

Results

Overall sensitivity of the programme was 79.9 %. SP in ACR 4 (a: 50 %, b: 50 %, c: 50 %) was significantly lower than in ACR 3 (a: 72.9 %, b: 79.4 %, c: 80.7 %, p < 0.001), ACR 2 (a: 83.9 %, b: 85.7 %, c: 83.2 %, p < 0.001) and ACR 1 (a: 100 %, b: 88.8 %, c: 100 %; p < 0.001). Frequencies of ACR 4 were a: 5.0 %, b: 4.3 %, c: 6.9 %.

Conclusion

Digital mammography screening with independent double reading leads to a high overall SP. In the small group of women with breast density classified as ACR 4 SP is significantly reduced compared to all other ACR categories.

Key Points

• Overall sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) was 79.9 %.
• In women with ACR 1, 2, or 3, SP ranged between 72.9 %-100 %.
• ACR 4 was rare in participants (<7 %) and SP was only 50 %.
• SP in ACR 4 differed significantly from ACR 3 (p < 0.001).
Literature
1.
American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
2.
Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston
3.
Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP et al (2016) Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 164:268–278CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Holm J, Humphreys K, Li J et al (2015) Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density. J Clin Oncol 33:1030–1037CrossRefPubMed
5.
Perry NM, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
6.
Heidinger O, Batzler WU, Krieg V et al (2012) The incidence of interval cancers in the German mammography screening programme: results from the population-based cancer registry in North Rhine-Westphalia. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109:781–787PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Törnberg S, Kemetli L, Ascunce N et al (2010) A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries. Eur J Cancer Prev 19:87–93CrossRefPubMed
8.
Wanders J, Holland K, Veldhuis W, et al (2015) Effect of volumetric mammographic density on performance of a breast cancer screening program using full-field digital mammography. In: European Congress of Radiology
9.
Holland K, van Zelst J, den Heeten GJ et al (2016) Consistency of breast density categories in serial screening mammograms: a comparison between automated and human assessment. Breast 29:49–54CrossRefPubMed
10.
Heidinger O, Heidrich J, Batzler WU et al (2015) Digital mammography screening in Germany: impact of age and histological subtype on program sensitivity. Breast 24:191–196CrossRefPubMed
11.
McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP et al (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743CrossRefPubMed
12.
Freer PE (2015) Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics 35:302–315CrossRefPubMed
13.
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Parris T, Wakefield D, Frimmer H (2013) Real world performance of screening breast ultrasound following enactment of Connecticut Bill 458. Breast J 19:64–70CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN et al (2015) Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 162:673–681CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G, et al (2016) Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol
Metadata
Title
Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density
Authors
Stefanie Weigel
W. Heindel
J. Heidrich
H.-W. Hense
O. Heidinger
Publication date
01-07-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4636-4

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

European Radiology 7/2017 Go to the issue

Chest

Restrictive allograft syndrome after lung transplantation: new radiological insights

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for monitoring future liver remnant function after portal vein embolization and extended hemihepatectomy: A prospective trial

Breast

Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey

Ultrasound

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous laser ablation of unifocal T1N0M0 papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: Preliminary results

Emergency Radiology

Radiology response in the emergency department during a mass casualty incident: a retrospective study of the two terrorist attacks on 22 July 2011 in Norway

Head and Neck

Radiation dose reduction using 100-kVp and a sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm in adolescent head CT: Impact on grey–white matter contrast and image noise